"Talking with trees" in July's Touchstone

[Lily]

But as for the plant realm I know that not much is known in terms of physiology and pathophysiology. But it seems true that plants do react on influences from outside, and this pretty fast. That makes me optimistic that once we know about the biochemical pathways and we learn about kind of an intelligence and will be able to develop methods of communication.

It's just that it might be a bit difficult to communicate with a being that knows a half a dozen words or so, such as "up", "down", "light", "wound", "predator".
As we have discussed endlessly before, it probably does not even know the word "ouch". and definitely not "hello" or "hug".

[Bart]

LOL

@ Al Hakim What I meant is not just the switch to the brain, but the switch through the unmyelated nociceptic pathways. This will go extremely slow, but lingers for some time. Basicly what I wanted to say was better worded by Lily (as usual), It will give possibility to say: augh but nothing else. I had a Anatomy/pathology professor once caim that the T rex became extinct because the universe had invented the Schwann Cell. This gave him a disadvantage, like driving a T-ford and being hunted by a Formula One car.

The communication of trees will be at most undifferntiated grunts, which lingers. Wayne Gretzky would argue that you need awareness of language to start communicating. And I think most trees do not bother with acknowleding us. But I am open to be proved wrong.

[DJ Droood]

Wayne Gretzky would argue that you need awareness of language to start communicating.

Really? I could more see Wayne arguing that you need to give "110%" and "Get the puck out of the corner to make chances."

[Explorer]

This thread has me wondering about some things.

When does presenting falsehood as facts become lying?
When does it become unethical to twist other people's scientific work in such a way that it has no relation to the truth anymore?
When does it become unethical to spread ignorance and falsehood?
How responsible are people for their own ignorance and lack of investigating the truth?
How do we look upon people who try to discredit those who expose lies and discover truth?
How seriously do we take truth, and where do we draw the line?

I think it was wrong of Touchstone to place this article, because it goes against what we honour as druids, honesty and truth.
Personally I would be for setting an example, asking the writer to rectify and apologize, and refuse any future articles from him.

[Al Hakim]

Hi Nico,

you do not really like the article, I feel. How, if we took it just as a suggestion to reflect on things? Living in an Arabic surrounding for twelve years makes one feel relaxed about ideas that sound strange - my apology.

Al Hakim

P.S. Ignore, please, typos, because I noticed that the "y"-key tends to get jammed on my notebook and the cursor likes to jump to any other line then. That's technique.

[Bart]

Wayne Gretzky would argue that you need awareness of language to start communicating.

Really? I could more see Wayne arguing that you need to give "110%" and "Get the puck out of the corner to make chances."

OK now I feel like a jerk: Noam Chomsky. I go to bed now, night night

[Al Hakim]

Do sleep well, and dream about trees - and tree whisperer s...
Al Hakim

[DJ Droood]

Wayne Gretzky would argue that you need awareness of language to start communicating.

Really? I could more see Wayne arguing that you need to give "110%" and "Get the puck out of the corner to make chances."

OK now I feel like a jerk: Noam Chomsky. I go to bed now, night night

ahhhhh...now that is more Noam's style! Wayne is no slouch, though...one of the better-spoken pro-athletes and a real gentleman....and probably takes a body-check better than Noam.

[Arcanum]

I think it should be said that scientific method does not prove anything - only disproves:o)

Ofcourse you can prove things. You can prove that somebody is wrong, or lying (like in the case of the tree article).

In scientific method, one forms a hypothesis. A hypothesis can be supported or refuted through experimentation or more observation. A hypothesis can be disproven, but not proven to be true.

The author kind of disproved his hypothesis from the get go.


I do like the idea that Al Hakim has brought up though - communicating in different ways that what we are used to.....

[Bart]

Ideas are never wrong, Imagination is a powerful tool for science. But than you need to prove it, and thats all we are asking.

[Explorer]

you do not really like the article, I feel. How, if we took it just as a suggestion to reflect on things?

Ofcourse we could take it that way, but... where do you draw the line?

If somebody says "it has been scientifically proven that women are less intelligent than men, so they need to be shown their proper place". And then that claim turns out to be false, then what would you do?

Would you then also suggest to just take it just as a statement to refect on things also?
Of would you somehow want to make that person responsible for his words?

[DJ Droood]

FACEPALM
……………………………………..,,_,_._.__,,
………………………………,.-‘”……………….“~.,
………………………..,.-”……………………………..“-.,
…………………….,/………………………………………..”:,
…………………,?………………………………………………\,
………………./………………………………………………….,}
……………../………………………………………………,:`^`..}
……………/……………………………………………,:”………/
…………..?…..__…………………………………..:`………../
…………./__.(…..“~-,_…………………………,:`………./
………../(_….”~,_……..“~,_………………..,:`…….._/
……….{.._\;_……”=,_…….“-,_…….,.-~-,},.~”;/….}
………..((…..*~_…….”=-._……“;,,./`…./”…………../
…,,,___.\`~,……“~.,………………..`…..}…………../
…………(….`=-,,…….`……………………(……;_,,-”
…………/.`~,……`-………………………….\……/\
………….\`~.*-,……………………………….|,./…..\,__
,,_……….}.>-._\……………………………..|…………..`=~-,
…..`=~-,_\_……`\,……………………………\
……………….`=~-,,.\,………………………….\
…………………………..`:,,………………………`\…………..__
……………………………….`=-,……………….,%`>–==“
…………………………………._\……….._,-%…….`\
……………………………..,< `.._|_,-&"...............

[Kima]

Ofcourse we could take it that way, but... where do you draw the line?

If somebody says "it has been scientifically proven that women are less intelligent than men, so they need to be shown their proper place". And then that claim turns out to be false, then what would you do?

Would you then also suggest to just take it just as a statement to refect on things also?
Of would you somehow want to make that person responsible for his words?

I would never say "science says X" in a published article without providing references to support my claims. Then I'd still have to make sure I haven't distorted the authors whose work I discuss - but even if I did my readers would be able to trace their ideas back to them and decide for themselves. I believe this is called ethics?

[Explorer]

Ofcourse we could take it that way, but... where do you draw the line?

If somebody says "it has been scientifically proven that women are less intelligent than men, so they need to be shown their proper place". And then that claim turns out to be false, then what would you do?

Would you then also suggest to just take it just as a statement to refect on things also?
Of would you somehow want to make that person responsible for his words?

I would never say "science says X" in a published article without providing references to support my claims. Then I'd still have to make sure I haven't distorted the authors whose work I discuss - but even if I did my readers would be able to trace their ideas back to them and decide for themselves. I believe this is called ethics?

Exactly!

[Merlyn]

so I was wondering if anyone out there has scientific proof either way?

Talking to trees...
I apologize for only reading the first and last pages of this thread, seemed a bit circular as not to be getting to the point or...proving same.
Experience or wikipedia.. ... dare we say our own feelings when being skeptical?

Science is indeed interchangeable often with the word magic, all be it we hadn’t seen a atom we knew it was there, now we claim to smash them!
So trees.. yes back to the topic.

Long before the OBOD was in revival, and Philip wrote the Book Of Druidry.. the lore of trees was very much alive and well. In the skeptical forum here, I say this from direct experience. Six years my elder, my sister was learned in talking to trees from my grandmother, when I was just born. This lore was part of our folk tradition, and I was learned in tree lore as I grew. One day in the back yard my grand mom was speaking to a weeping cherry tree we had recently planted for her in our back yard. I had wandered upon her, and asked her who she was speaking to. She told me she was speaking to my aunt who had passed away recently, the weeping cherry was planted there for her to "come to".

Now... science. And do trees every really speak back?
Well..
.. EMT and magnetic waves aside... yes. Ever see the green man?
Have people ever listened to the whisper of the wind through the leaves? "But that is random" that's not science!


Just Magic

Blessings,
Merlyn

[Explorer]

so I was wondering if anyone out there has scientific proof either way?

Talking to trees...
I apologize for only reading the first and last pages of this thread, seemed a bit circular as not to be getting to the point or...proving same.
Experience or wikipedia.. ... dare we say our own feelings when being skeptical?

Science is indeed interchangeable often with the word magic, all be it we hadn’t seen a atom we knew it was there, now we claim to smash them!
So trees.. yes back to the topic.

Long before the OBOD was in revival, and Philip wrote the Book Of Druidry.. the lore of trees was very much alive and well. In the skeptical forum here, I say this from direct experience. Six years my elder, my sister was learned in talking to trees from my grandmother, when I was just born. This lore was part of our folk tradition, and I was learned in tree lore as I grew. One day in the back yard my grand mom was speaking to a weeping cherry tree we had recently planted for her in our back yard. I had wandered upon her, and asked her who she was speaking to. She told me she was speaking to my aunt who had passed away recently, the weeping cherry was planted there for her to "come to".

Now... science. And do trees every really speak back?
Well..
.. EMT and magnetic waves aside... yes. Ever see the green man?
Have people ever listened to the whisper of the wind through the leaves? "But that is random" that's not science!


Just Magic

Blessings,
Merlyn

Hi Merlyn,
I believe that you miss the point.
Whether it is science, magic, board meetings, the daily news, or any other exchange of idea's between people. In all cases it is simply not okay to lie. At least from the viewpoint of druidry where we value truth.

Outrageous or visionary theories are fine! As long as it is provided as such, as a hypothesis. And if it is backed up by experiences then even better.
But pretending to base it on scientific research that never happened and claiming results that are false, is fraud.

And clearly not everybody in this group can make that distinction, that is what makes it so bad. You see some people in this thread even accepting the story because 'feels good', despite the proof of falsehood.

This is what makes us druids sometimes look like such naieve idiots to the outside world, and why I still feel embarrassed to call myself 'druid'. Not because we talk to trees and use magic. But because so many of us can't see difference between truth and falsehood. There is a difference between an imaginative inquisitive open mind and naieve ignorant blindness. And I think we should encourage the former and resist the latter.

[Hennie]

In the Druid's Prayer there is no mentioning of 'Truth'.

And science has long given up the search for truth and has become pragmatic by the end of the 19th century.

[Explorer]

In the Druid's Prayer there is no mentioning of 'Truth'.

And science has long given up the search for truth and has become pragmatic by the end of the 19th century.

So, it is okay to lie then Hennie?
Because 'truth' is not mentioned in the druids prayer?
(are you sure that you joined the right cult?)

[Hennie]

No, I think to lie is a bad thing to do, mostly.

I think the man who wrote this article was completely honest in his intentions, though perhaps bad- and ill informed.

[Lily]

In the Druid's Prayer there is no mentioning of 'Truth'.

But there is mention of knowledge, understanding, and justice.
Same thing to me.

Exactly what Nico said. This thread is not about denying we can talk to trees.It is about not mangling the statements of science at will.

And science has long given up the search for truth and has become pragmatic by the end of the 19th century.

That is exactly the type of anti-science backlash statement that I lament in my little manifesto above.
What, exactly, is the difference between truth and pragmatism? And why do you get this impression? And why exactly by the end of the 19th century, when so many ground-breaking discoveries were made in the 20th?
It saddens me as a scientist by calling and profession to see the discipline so misperceived.